And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14.
Ha upe umi ára-pe heta opuʼãta pe mburuvicha guasu ñemby gotyo guáre; avei nde retãygua apytégui umi ñaneʼẽrenduʼỹva oñemopuʼãta omopyenda hag̃ua pe visión; haʼekuéra katu hoʼáta. Daniel 11:14.
The word “doctrine” in the context of Christianity represents the established truths of the Bible. Various professedly Christian organizations possess different sets of what they define as biblical doctrines, but there is only one Truth. The distinction between “absolute truth” and “pluralism” is a subject outside our consideration at this juncture.
Pe ñe’ẽ “doctrina”, cristianismo ryepýpe, he’ise umi añetegua oñemopyenda porãva la Biblia-pe. Oĩ heta aty oñembohérava cristiana oguerekóva opaichagua aty doctrinakuéra ha’e kuéra omyesakãháicha doctrinas bíblicas ramo, péro peteĩnte oĩ pe Añetegua. Pe jehechauka ojuavyva “añetegua absoluto” ha “pluralismo” apytépe ningo peteĩ mba’e ndaikevéimava ñane ñehesa’ỹijópe ko’ág̃a.
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. John 18:37, 38.
Upévare Pilato he'i chupe: —Nde piko upéicharõ peteĩ mburuvicha guasu? Jesús ombohovái: —Nde ere che ha'eha mburuvicha guasu. Upévarã añemoheñói, ha upévarã aju ko yvy ape ári, amombe'u hag̃ua pe añetegua rehegua. Oimeraẽva oĩva pe añeteguápe ohendu che ñe'ẽ. Pilato he'i chupe: —Mba'épa pe añetegua? Ha he'íma rire kóva, osẽ jevy umi judíokuéra rendápe, ha he'i chupekuéra: —Ndajuhúi hese mba'eveichagua jejavy. Juan 18:37, 38.
Truth is God’s Word; it is His voice and it is Christ Himself.
Añetegua ha’e Tupã Ñe’ẽ; ha’e Hembiapu renda, ha ha’e Cristo voi.
“We should know for ourselves what constitutes Christianity, what is truth, what is the faith that we have received, what are the Bible rules—the rules given us from the highest authority. There are many who believe without a reason on which to base their faith, without sufficient evidence as to the truth of the matter. If an idea is presented that harmonizes with their own preconceived opinions, they are all ready to accept it. They do not reason from cause to effect, their faith has no genuine foundation, and in the time of trial they will find that they have built upon the sand.
“Jaikuaava’erã ñandejehegui voi mba’épa omoheñói cristianismo, mba’épa pe añetegua, mba’épa pe jerovia ñande jaguerekóva ñande pytyvõrã ramo ñande recibíva’ekue, mba’éichapa hína umi mbojojaha bíblicos—umi mbojojaha ñandéve oñeme’ẽva pe mburuvicha guasuvéva poguýpe. Heta oĩ ogueroviáva peteĩ razón’ỹre omoĩ hag̃ua ipyenda ijeroviarã, ha’ekuéra ndorekói porã suficiente prueba pe añeteguáre. Oñeme’ẽramo peteĩ temimo’ã oñemoĩporãva hendivekuéra remiimo’ã yma guarépe, pya’e oĩ oaccepta hag̃uáicha. Ndoikuaaporãi hikuái mba’éichapa peteĩ mba’e ogueru ambue mba’e, ha ijerovia ndorekói peteĩ pyenda añetéva; ha pe jehasa’asy árape ohechakuaáta hikuái omopu’ã hague hoga yvyku’i ári.
“He who rests satisfied with his own present imperfect knowledge of the Scriptures, thinking this sufficient for his salvation, is resting in a fatal deception. There are many who are not thoroughly furnished with Scriptural arguments, that they may be able to discern error, and condemn all the tradition and superstition that has been palmed off as truth. Satan has introduced his own ideas into the worship of God, that he might corrupt the simplicity of the gospel of Christ. A large number who claim to believe the present truth, know not what constitutes the faith that was once delivered to the saints—Christ in you the hope of glory. They think they are defending the old landmarks, but they are lukewarm and indifferent. They know not what it is to weave into their experience and to possess the real virtue of love and faith. They are not close Bible students, but are lazy and inattentive. When differences of opinion arise upon the passages of Scripture, these who have not studied to a purpose and are not decided as to what they believe, fall away from the truth. We ought to impress upon all the necessity of inquiring diligently into divine truth, that they may know that they do know what is truth. Some claim much knowledge, and feel satisfied with their condition, when they have no more zeal for the work, no more ardent love for God, and for souls for whom Christ died, than if they had never known God. They do not read the Bible [in order] to appropriate the marrow and fatness to their own souls. They do not feel that it is the voice of God speaking to them. But, if we would understand the way of salvation, if we would see the beams of the Sun of righteousness, we must study the Scriptures for a purpose, for the promises and prophecies of the Bible shed clear beams of glory upon the divine plan of redemption, which grand truths are not clearly comprehended.” The 1888 Materials, 403.
“Oimeraẽva hekopete ijehegui oguerekóvare ko’ág̃a peve iñarandumi ndoikóiva gueteri perfecciónpe Ñandejára Ñe’ẽme, ha oimo’ãva upéva oguerekóma iporãha hag̃ua isalvaciónrã, opytu’u peteĩ ñembotavy omano hag̃uápe. Heta oĩ ndaiporĩmbáiva Escritura rehegua argumento-kuérape, ikatu hag̃uáicha ohechakuaa jejavy, ha ombotovévo opa tradición ha superstición oñembohasáva añeteguáramo. Satanás omoingéma hekotee voi Tupã ñemomba’eguasúpe, ombyai hag̃uáicha Cristo evangelio isensillez. Hetaiterei umi he’íva ogueroviaha pe añetegua ko’ag̃agua, ndoikuaái mba’épa omoheñói pe jerovia peteĩ jey oñeme’ẽva’ekue umi santo-kuérape—Cristo pende pype, pe gloria esperánsa. Ha’ekuéra oimo’ã oñangarekoha umi yma guare marka-guasu rehe, ha katu haku’ỹ ha ndojepy’apýi. Ndoikuaái mba’épa he’ise omoinge hag̃ua ijehasa asýpe ha oguereko hag̃ua mborayhu ha jerovia rekopotĩ añetéva. Nda’éi hikuái umi oñemoag̃uíva la Biblia rehe ñemoarandu mbaretepe, síno iate’ỹ ha noñatendeporãi. Oñepyrũ jave iñambue hag̃ua umi ñeimo’ã Escritura pehẽnguekuéra rehe, ko’ãva nostudia porãiva peteĩ propósito rehehápe ha ndoikuaaporãiva mba’épa oguerovia, ojei pe añeteguágui. Tekotevẽ ñamomarandu opavavépe tekotevẽha oheka kyre’ỹme pe añetegua divina, ikatu hag̃uáicha oikuaa añetehápe oikuaaha mba’épa pe añetegua. Oĩ he’íva oguerekoha heta arandu, ha oñeñanduha ovy’a ipy’aguapýpe heko reheve, ha ndoguerekovéima kyre’ỹ tembiaporãrã, ni mborayhu hakuáva Tupã rehe, ni umi anga rehe Cristo omanóva’ekue rehehápe, ku araka’eve ndoikuaáirire guaréicha Tupãme. Ha’ekuéra nomoñe’ẽi la Biblia [ikatu hag̃uáicha] omoĩ ijapýra ha ikyrakue ijehe kuéra ángape. Ndohechakuaái upéva ha’eha Tupã ñe’ẽ oñe’ẽva chupekuéra. Péro, jaikuaaséramo pe tape porãsãrã, jahechaséramo pe Kuarahy tekojoja rehegua rendykuéra, tekotevẽ jahecha pypuku Escritura peteĩ propósito rehehápe, pórke pe Biblia promésa ha profesía-kuéra omimbi hesakã porãme pe gloria rendy pe plan divino ñepysyrõ rehegua ári, umi tuicha añetegua noñentendeporãi gueteri.” The 1888 Materials, 403.
We are required to know what those doctrines are, and how to present, establish and defend those truths.
Ojejerure jaikuaa hag̃ua mba’épa umi doctrina, ha mba’éichapa ñapresentáta, ñamopyendáta ha ñadefendéta umi añetegua.
“It does not seem possible to us now that any should have to stand alone; but if God has ever spoken by me, the time will come when we shall be brought before councils and before thousands for his name’s sake, and each one will have to give the reason of his faith. Then will come the severest criticism upon every position that has been taken for the truth. We need, then, to study the word of God, that we may know why we believe the doctrines we advocate. We must critically search the living oracles of Jehovah.” Review and Herald, December 18, 1888.
“Ndaikatúi ñandéve koʼág̃a oĩtaha oĩvaʼerã ojehegui año; ha katu, Tupã che rupive arakaʼeve oñeʼẽ ramo, pe ára oguahẽta ñandejereraháta hag̃ua atykuérape ha heta hetaitereípe héra rehehápe, ha káda peteĩ oĩvaʼerã omeʼẽ hag̃ua pe mbaʼérepa oguerovia ijerovia. Upérõ ou vaʼerã pe jehechajey ha jehapykuerã atyvéva opa tendáre oñemoĩ vaʼekue añeteguáre guarã. Tekotevẽ, upévare, jaikuaa hag̃ua mbaʼérepa jaguerovia umi doctrina ñamombeʼúva, jahesaʼỹijo Tupã Ñeʼẽ. Tekotevẽ jahekávo ijojahaʼỹ hag̃uáicha Jehová ñeʼẽ oikovéva.” Review and Herald, 18 de diciembre de 1888.
In order to be brought before “thousands” it is evident that some of the defenders of truth in the last days will be forced to defend the truth in a medium such as television or web broadcasts. How else could thousands watch the testimony given by the one hundred and forty-four thousand? The doctrines we advocate identify the basis of our faith.
Ikatu hag̃uáicha oñegueraha hag̃ua “miles” renondépe, ojehechakuaa porãha umi añetegua ñemo’ãhára apytégui ára pahápe oĩtaha umi oñembohasátava oñemo’ã hag̃ua pe añetegua rehe peteĩ medio rupi, ha’eháicha televisión térã ñemyasãi ñanduti rupive. Mba’éicha ambuéicha ikatúta miles ohecha pe testimonio ome’ẽva umi cien cuarenta y cuatro mil? Umi doctrina ñamyesakãva ohechauka ñande jerovia pyenda.
“The members of the church will individually be tested and proved. They will be placed in circumstances where they will be forced to bear witness for the truth. Many will be called to speak before councils and in courts of justice, perhaps separately and alone. The experience which would have helped them in this emergency they have neglected to obtain, and their souls are burdened with remorse for wasted opportunities and neglected privileges.” Testimonies, volume 5, 463.
“Pe tupãopegua peteĩteĩ oñeha’ãta ha ojehechaukáta mba’éichapa hikuái. Oñemoĩta hikuái circunstancia-kuérape ojejopy hag̃uáicha chupekuéra oguerovia hag̃ua pe añetegua rehe. Heta oñehenóita oñe’ẽ hag̃uáicha consejo-kuéra renondépe ha justicia róga-kuérape, ikatu hag̃uáicha peteĩteĩnte ha ha’eño. Pe experiencia ikatúva kuri oipytyvõ chupekuéra ko tekotevẽ guasúpe, omboyke hikuái ohupyty hag̃ua; ha iñe’ãnguéra ipohyietéta ñembyasy reheve umi oportunidad oñehundíva ha umi privilegio oñemboyképava rehe.” Testimonios, tomo 5, 463.
God’s Word never fails, and therefore if we are to be numbered with the one hundred and forty-four thousand, we must know what we believe based upon what is written in God’s Word. Before the testing time arrives when God’s people are forced to explain the doctrines they believe, God allows errors to be introduced in order to force God’s people to critically study His Word.
Tupã Ñe’ẽ araka’eve ndojejavýi, ha upévare, ñande jajepapa hag̃uáicha umi cien cuarenta y cuatro mil apytépe, tekotevẽ jaikuaa mbaʼe jajeroviáva, oñemopyendáva upe ojehaívare Tupã Ñeʼẽme. Oguahẽ mboyve pe ára jehechaporãrã, Tupã retãygua oñemoinge jave ohechauka hag̃ua umi doctrina ogueroviáva, Tupã oheja jejavy oike hag̃ua, ikatu hag̃uáicha omomýi Tupã retãygua toñemoarandu porã ha tohesa’ỹijo hag̃ua iÑe’ẽ.
“The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God’s people should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what.
Pe ndaipóriha ñorairõ térã jehepy’apy Tupã tavayguakuéra apytépe, ndovaléi ojehecha hag̃ua upéva ramoite techaukaha añetetéva ojejoko mbareteha doctrina hekopeteva rehe. Oĩ mba’ére hag̃ua hag̃ua kyhyje ikatúva hikuái ndohesakã porãiha oikuaa hag̃ua añetegua ha jejavy apytépe. Araka’eve noñepyrũiramo porandu pyahu Tupã Ñe’ẽ jehesa’ỹijo rupive, ha ndaipóriramo iñambue hag̃ua ñeimo’ã omongu’éva kuimba’ekuérape ohekávo hikuái la Biblia ijehegui, oikuaa hag̃ua añetehápe oguerekoha pe añetegua, hetáva ko’ág̃a, yma guaréicha, ojapóta jepokuaa rehe ha omomba’eguasúta mba’e ndoikuaáiva mba’épa.
“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested they knew not their great ignorance. And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe; but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God and a turning to men, putting human in place of divine wisdom.
“Ojehechauka chéve heta umi he’íva oguerekoha pe añetegua ko’ag̃agua rehegua kuaapy, ha ndoikuaái mba’épa oguerovia. Nontendéi hikuái umi prueba ohechaukáva ijerovia. Norekói hikuái peteĩ porã ha hekopete aprecio pe tembiapo ko tiempopegua rehe. Oguahẽvo pe ára jejopy ha prueba rehegua, oĩta kuimba’e ko’ág̃a opredikáva ambuépe, ha ohecháta, oexamína jave umi posición oguerekóva, oĩha heta mba’e ndaikatúiva ome’ẽ hesegua peteĩ razón porã ha omoĩ porã hag̃uáicha. Peichaite ojeproba mboyve, ndoikuaái hikuái tuichaitereiha iñignoránsia. Ha oĩ heta tupaope oguerekóva por seguro oikuaaha mba’épa oguerovia; hákatu, pe controversia osẽ mboyve, ndoikuaái hikuái imba’e kangy tee. Ojepe’ávo chuguikuéra umi ijerovia peteĩchagua guive, ha oñemomandu’ávo chupekuéra toñembo’y ha’eño ha peteĩnte hag̃ua omyesakã hag̃ua ijerovia, oñesorprendéta hikuái ohechávo mba’éichapa ojopará ha ipañẽ umi iidea umi mba’e hikuái omoneĩ va’ekue añetegua ramo. Añetehápe ningo oĩ kuri ore apytépe peteĩ jepe’a Tupã oikovévagui ha peteĩ jere yvypórape, oñemoĩvo arandu yvypóra rehegua pe arandu Tupãgua rendaguépe.
“God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep. Precious light has come, appropriate for this time. It is Bible truth, showing the perils that are right upon us. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold. God would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be firmly founded upon the word of God so that when the testing time shall come and they are brought before councils to answer for their faith they may be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear.
“Tupã omombáyta Itavayguakuérape; ambue tape ndaikatúiramo, oike hag̃ua apytépekuéra herehía, ha umíva omboguata hag̃ua peteĩ ñemongu’e ojehe’apa hag̃ua, omboja’óvo kapi’i piru trígogui. Ñandejára ohenói opa umi ogueroviávape Iñe’ẽ opáy hag̃ua okegui. Oguahẽma tesape hepyetereíva, oñemohendáva ko árape g̃uarã. Kóva ha’e añetegua Bíblica, ohechaukáva umi mba’e vai ñande áriete oĩmava. Ko tesape ogueraha va’erã ñandéve peteĩ estudio kyre’ỹme hag̃ua Ñandejára Ñe’ẽre, ha peteĩ jehechajey ipypuku ha hekopetevéva umi ñembo’y rehe jaguerekóva. Tupã oipota opa umi mba’e rehegua ha ñembo’y añetegua rehegua oñehesa’ỹijo porãite ha tapiaite, ñembo’e ha ayuno reheve. Umi ogueroviáva ndopytáiva’erã mba’e oñeimo’ãntevape térã temimo’ã hesakã’ỹvape mba’épa añetegua. Ijerovia toñemopyenda mbarete Tupã Ñe’ẽ ári ikatu hag̃uáicha, oguahẽvo ára jehovasa’ỹ rehegua ha ogueraha jave chupekuéra atykuérape ombohovái hag̃ua ijerovia rehe, ikatu hag̃ua ome’ẽ hag̃ua peteĩ mba’érepa oha’arõva ryru, py’aguapy ha kyhyje reheve.
“Agitate, agitate, agitate. The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. With those who have educated themselves as debaters there is great danger that they will not handle the word of God with fairness. In meeting an opponent it should be our earnest effort to present subjects in such a manner as to awaken conviction in his mind, instead of seeking merely to give confidence to the believer.
“Pemongu’e, pemongu’e, pemongu’e. Umi mba’e ñambohasáva ko yvy ariguakuérape tekotevẽ toiko ñandéve g̃uarã peteĩ añetegua oikovéva ramo. Tuicha mba’e, ñadefende jave umi doctrina ñahesa’ỹijóva jerovia rehegua artículo fundamental ramo, araka’eve ani ñañeme’ẽ ñañe’ẽ hag̃ua argumento ndaha’éiva iporãmbaitéva. Umíva ikatu oipytyvõ omokirirĩ hag̃ua peteĩ ñemoĩhára, ha katu nomomba’éi pe añetegua. Tekotevẽ ñapresenta argumento hekopete ha añetegua, ndaha’éi hag̃uánte omokirirĩ ñande rovakeguápe, síno avei ikatu hag̃uáicha ogueropu’aka pe jehechajoja hi’aguĩvéva ha oikytĩ porãvéva. Umi oñembokatupyrýva oñe’ẽ hag̃ua ñorairõháicha apytépe oĩ peteĩ tuicha peligro: ikatu hag̃uáicha ndojapói Tupã Ñe’ẽ rehe hekojojápe. Jajotopa jave peteĩ ñemoĩhára ndive, tekotevẽ toiko ñane rembiapo py’aguasúva ñambohasa hag̃ua umi mba’e peteĩ hendáicha omoingovéva jerovia hag̃ua iñakãme, ha ani ñañeha’ã hag̃uánte ñamombarete jerovia pe ogueroviávape.”
“Whatever may be man’s intellectual advancement, let him not for a moment think that there is no need of thorough and continuous searching of the Scriptures for greater light. As a people we are called individually to be students of prophecy. We must watch with earnestness that we may discern any ray of light which God shall present to us. We are to catch the first gleamings of truth; and through prayerful study clearer light may be obtained, which can be brought before others.” Testimonies, volume 5, 708.
“Oimeraẽva tapicha arandu ñemotenonde, ani hag̃ua sapy’ami jepe opensa ndaiporiha tekotevẽ peteĩ jehekápe ipypuku ha tapiaitegua Ñandejára Ñe’ẽme tesakã tuichavéva rehehápe. Tetãygua ramo ñande nhenói peteĩteĩteĩ hag̃ua ñaiméva marandu’ypy ñemoaranduha. Jahechava’erã akãguapy ha kyre’ỹme ikatu hag̃uáicha jaikuaa oimeraẽ tesakã rendy michĩmi Ñandejára ohechaukátava ñandéve. Ñajapyhyva’erã añetegua resape ñepyrũmbykuéra; ha ñemo’ẽ rupive, ñehesa’ỹijo ñembo’ére reheve, ikatu oñeguenohẽ tesakã hesakãvéva, ikatúva oñemoĩ ambuéva renondépe.” Testimonios, volúmen 5, 708.
The “students of prophecy” that ultimately makeup the one hundred and forty-four thousand will be “individually tested and proved,” in advance of their confrontation with the earthly powers who bring about the soon-coming Sunday law crisis and persecution. The faithful will first be “aroused” by God. The sleeping virgins will be “aroused” from the slumber they have fallen into during the tarrying time. If they will not awaken by the message that God has presented through the articles that have been sent forth since July of 2023, then God will allow “heresies” to “come in among them” which will finish the separation of the wheat and tares through a sifting process. We are now in that sifting process.
“Marandeko rehegua temimbo’ekuéra” ipahaitépe omoheñóitava cien cuarenta y cuatro mil-pe ojeha’ãta ha ojehechaukáta peteĩteĩva “iñambuéva ha añetegua” hag̃ua, mboyve oñembohovái hag̃ua hikuái umi pu’aka yvy arigua oguerútava pe apañuãi ha jejopyrã pya’e oútava, pe arapokõindy ára léi rehegua. Umi jerovia hag̃ua oikóva oñemombáyta raẽ Tupã rupive. Umi kuñataĩ okevape oñemombáyta “oke puku”gui ho’ava’ekue pe aravo ipukúva aja. Ndoikéiramo hikuái pe marandu rupive Tupã ome’ẽ va’ekue umi artículo oñemondo va’ekue rupi julio ary 2023 guive, upéicharamo Tupã ohejáta “mbo’epy vai” “oike hag̃ua ijapytepekuéra”, upéva omohu’ãta pe trigo ha ñana ñemboja’o peteĩ kyhyje mboguata rupive. Ko’ág̃a ñande jaime pe kyhyje mboguata apytépe.
There are three options available to those who have been following in the controversy of the correct identification of Modern Rome. One option is that the United States is Modern Rome, the other is that the papal power is Modern Rome and the third option is that both of the previous positions are incorrect and some other power is represented by the robbers of Daniel’s people who exalt themselves, fall, and establish the vision in verse fourteen of Daniel chapter eleven.
Oĩ mbohapy jejapoha oĩva umi omoirũ vaʼekuépe pe ñorairõme oñeñeʼẽhápe pe jehechakuaa añetévare máva hína Roma Pyaʼe koʼág̃agua. Peteĩ jejapoha haʼe hína Estados Unidos haʼeha Roma Pyaʼe koʼág̃agua; ambue haʼe pe poder papal haʼeha Roma Pyaʼe koʼág̃agua; ha mbohapyha jejapoha haʼe mokõivéva umi ñemoĩmbyre ohasavaʼekue ndoikóiha, ha ambue poder ambuéva ojehechauka hag̃ua umi mondaha Daniel retãygua rehegua rupive, umi oñembotuicháva ijeheguiete, hoʼáva, ha omopyendáva pe visión oĩva versículo catorce-pe, Daniel capítulo once-pe.
I contend that the disagreement of whether Modern Rome is the papal power or the United States, has been allowed to be introduced into this movement for the purpose of forcing His people to study His prophetic Word. God has brought about this controversy in a manifestation of His mercy. I contend the disagreement is more about preparing His people for the coming crisis than simply identifying who is right and who is wrong about Modern Rome. The disagreement was allowed and designed by God to demonstrate, for any who wish to see, that their own personal understanding of His prophetic Word is incomplete or incorrect. The controversy is therefore evidence of God’s mercy.
Añe’ẽ hatã ko ñembokavichu’i rehegua, pe Róma Ko’ãgagua pe mburuvicha guasu papakuéra rehegua térã Estados Unidos rehegua, ojeheja hag̃ua oike ko movimiento-pe ikatu hag̃uáicha omomýi Itavayguakuérape tostudia hag̃ua Iñe’ẽ maranduhára. Tupã ogueru ko joavy ohechauka hag̃ua Imborayhu poriahuvereko reheve. Añe’ẽ hatã pe joavy ndaha’éi mante hag̃ua ojekuaa mávapa oĩ porã ha mávapa oĩ vai Róma Ko’ãgagua rehegua, síno hetave hag̃uáicha ombosako’i Itavayguakuérape pe apañuãi oútavape g̃uarã. Pe joavy ojeheja ha oñembosako’i Tupã rupive ojehechauka hag̃ua, oimeraẽ ohechasevape g̃uarã, ijeheguiete ikuaapy Iñe’ẽ maranduhára rehegua ndoikopletéi térã oĩ vaiha. Upévare, pe ñembokavichu’i ha’e peteĩ techaukaha Tupã poriahuvereko rehegua.
The controversy not only involves the identification of who is the power represented by the robbers of thy people, but also whether the methodology of line upon line that both sides of the controversy profess to uphold is being properly applied. The prophetic rules associated with the methodology of line upon line includes special prophetic principles which will be part of the sifting process of the wheat and tares. Three elements of the methodology of line upon line which I contend are being misunderstood in this current controversy are Christ as the Truth, and Christ as Alpha and Omega, and a triple application of prophecy.
Pe kontroversia ndoikéi ndaha’éi añoite mávapa pe pu’aka ojehechaukáva “nde retãgua mondaháru” rupive, síno avei oikuaaukápa porã pe tembiaporã rape “línea ári línea” rehegua, mokõive lado pe controversiagui he’íva omombareteha. Umi regla profética ojoajúva pe tembiaporã rape “línea ári línea” rehe oguereko peteĩháicha umi principio profético especial ha’éva parte pe proceso de zarandeo trigo ha cizaña rehegua. Mbohapy elemento pe tembiaporã rape “línea ári línea” rehegua, che adefendéva ko’ág̃aite pe controversia-pe ojekuaa vaiha, ha’e hína Cristo pe Añetegua ramo, ha Cristo Alfa ha Omega ramo, ha peteĩ aplicación triple de profecía.
Ultimately those who hold to an incorrect understanding of verse fourteen of Daniel eleven will be found to be basing their doctrinal position upon a private interpretation.
Ipahápe umi oipyhy vaʼekue peteĩ ñeʼẽmeʼẽ vai rehegua Daniel once-pegua once capítulogui, versíkulo catorce rehe, ojejuhúta omopyenda hague iñemboʼepy renda peteĩ interpretación privada ári.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:19–21.
Oreko avei ñe’ẽ porãve maranduhára rehegua, upévare pejapo porã pehendu hag̃ua chupe, peteĩ tesape omimbipávaicha peteĩ tenda pytũhápe, pe ára hesakã peve, ha pe mbyja ko’ẽmegua osẽ peve pene korasõme: peikuaávo ko mba’e tenonderãite, ndaipóriha peteĩ profesía Escritúraguigua oúva avave interpretación imba’éva año rupi. Pe profesía ndouiva’ekue yma yvypóra rembipota rupi; síno kuimba’e marangatu Tupãgua oñe’ẽ, oisãmbyhývo chupekuéra Espíritu Santo. 2 Pedro 1:19–21.
In the controversy over verse fourteen, an example of what I understand to be a “private interpretation” is found in The Great Controversy.
Pe ñe'ẽjoavy oĩva versíkulo catorce rehe, peteĩ techapyrã che aikũmbyha “ñemyesakã ñemi” ramo ojejuhu El Gran Conflicto-pe.
“As the Sabbath has become the special point of controversy throughout Christendom, and religious and secular authorities have combined to enforce the observance of the Sunday, the persistent refusal of a small minority to yield to the popular demand will make them objects of universal execration. It will be urged that the few who stand in opposition to an institution of the church and a law of the state ought not to be tolerated; that it is better for them to suffer than for whole nations to be thrown into confusion and lawlessness. The same argument many centuries ago was brought against Christ by the ‘rulers of the people.’ ‘It is expedient for us,’ said the wily Caiaphas, ‘that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.’ John 11:50. This argument will appear conclusive; and a decree will finally be issued against those who hallow the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, denouncing them as deserving of the severest punishment and giving the people liberty, after a certain time, to put them to death. Romanism in the Old World and apostate Protestantism in the New will pursue a similar course toward those who honor all the divine precepts.” The Great Controversy, 615.
“Pe sábado oikóvo peteĩ kuatia joavy rehegua ijojaha’ỹva opa Cristo reroviaha apytépe, ha mburuvichakuéra jeroviapy rehegua ha tetãygua oñondivepa ojehe’a hag̃ua oñemboaje hag̃ua domingo ñemboyke, peteĩ michĩmi aty sa’íva ndopytái hag̃uáicha upe mba’e ojejerurévare opavave rehehápe, upéva ojapóta chuguikuéra mba’e vaiete hag̃ua ojehayhu’ỹva opárupi. Oje’éta umi mbovymi oñembo’ýva peteĩ temimoĩmby tupaópegua ha peteĩ léi tetãygua rovái ndojehejaiva’erãha oikove hag̃ua upéicha; iporãveha ha’ekuéra ohasa asy hag̃ua hag̃ua, ani hag̃ua tetãnguéra kompletoite oñemoinge sarambi ha tekoléi’ỹme. Pe argumento peteĩchagua heta siglo yma guaréma ojeporu va’ekue Cristo rehe “tetãyguakuéra ruvichakuéra” rupive. “Iporã ñandéve guarã”, he’i va’ekue Caifás iñarandúva, “peteĩ kuimba’e omano hag̃ua tavayguakuéra rehehápe, ani hag̃ua opaite tetã oñehundi.” Juan 11:50. Ko argumento ojehechaukátaicha peteĩ mba’e ikatupyrýva ha oĩporãva; ha ipahápe osẽta peteĩ decreto umi omarangatúva pe sábado, pe irundyha mandamiéntopegua, rovái, ohenóivo chupekuéra tekotevẽha oñekastiga mbaretevéva rupive ha ome’ẽvo tavayguakuérape líverta, peteĩ aravo rire, ojuka hag̃ua chupekuéra. Romanismo pe Yvytu Ymaguápe ha protestantismo opu’ãva pe Yvytu Pyahúpe omyakãta peteĩ tape peteĩchagua umi omomba’éva opa umi tembiapoukapy Tupãmeguáva gotyo.” The Great Controversy, 615.
“Christendom” represents the worldwide community of Christians or the collective body of Christian-majority countries and cultures. The term is often used to denote the parts of the world where Christianity is the dominant religion and has significantly influenced the culture, laws, and social norms. Christendom encompasses the global expanse of Christianity in terms of its followers, cultural impact, and historical significance. Without removing the repetition that exists in the Ellen White CD-ROM, the word Christendom occurs one hundred and seventy-six times. Geographically Sister White identifies that Christendom in general represents Europe and the Americas. In the context of Sister White, Europe is identified as the Old World and the Americas are the New World.
“Cristiandad” ohechauka cristianokuéra aty guasu ko yvy ape ári térã tetã ha tekokuéra aty omoĩvéva cristianismo ipype. Ko ñe’ẽ ojepuru jepi hag̃ua ojehechauka hag̃ua umi tendáre ko yvy ape ári pe cristianismo ha’éva pe jerovia oguerekovéva mbarete ha oitypaite hag̃ua tuicha mba’épe tekokáre, léi kuérare ha tekoha’ãnguéra rehe. Cristiandad oguereko ipype pe cristianismo oñemosarambíva opaite yvy ape ári, umi hapykuere rehegua, pe impacto cultural rehegua, ha iñe’ẽmbyry histórico rehegua. Oñembogue’ỹre pe jevyjey oĩva Ellen White CD-ROM-pe, pe ñe’ẽ Christendom ojehu peteĩ ciento setenta y seis jey. Geográficamente, Sister White ohechauka Cristiandad, hetaiteve jave, orrepresentaha Europa ha las Américas. Sister White contexto-pe, Europa oñemombe’u pe Mundo Viejo ramo ha las Américas pe Mundo Nuevo ramo.
“But the beast with lamblike horns was seen ‘coming up out of the earth.’ Instead of overthrowing other powers to establish itself, the nation thus represented must arise in territory previously unoccupied and grow up gradually and peacefully. It could not, then, arise among the crowded and struggling nationalities of the Old World—that turbulent sea of ‘peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.’ It must be sought in the Western Continent.
“Ha pe mymba hatĩ ojoguáicha ovecha ra’y ratĩre ojehecha vaekue ‘osẽvo yvýgui.’ Oñemopu’ã hag̃ua ijeheguiete, ndaha’éi vaerã omombo hag̃ua ambue pu’aka; upévare, pe tetã ojehechauka vaekue upéicha osẽva’erã vaekue peteĩ yvýpe yma guive avave ndoikói hague, ha okakuaa hag̃ua mbeguekatu ha py’aguapýpe. Ndaikatúi, upéicharõ, osẽ umi tetãnguéra itykýra ha oñorairõva apytépe pe Yvy Tuja-pe, pe para guasu opyryrýva oje’éva hese ‘tavayguakuéra, aty hetakuéra, tetãnguéra, ha ñe’ẽnguéra.’ Ojeheka va’erã upéicharõ pe Kontinénte Kuarahyreikegua-pe.
“What nation of the New World was in 1798 rising into power, giving promise of strength and greatness, and attracting the attention of the world? The application of the symbol admits of no question. One nation, and only one, meets the specifications of this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of America.’ The Great Controversy, 441.
“Máva Tetã Pyahupegua tetãpa ary 1798-pe opuʼãva’ekue ipuʼakáramo, omeʼẽvo mbareté ha tuichakue rekovévo, ha ogueraha hag̃ua yvy tuichakue atención? Ko símbolo ñemohenda ndaikatúi oñeporandu. Peteĩ tetã, ha peteĩnte, ombohovái ko profesía mbaʼejerurépe; ohechauka hesakã hag̃uáicha Tetã peteĩ reko Amérika-peguápe.” The Great Controversy, 441.
The last sentence in the paragraph we are considering has been employed to suggest that “Romanism in the Old World and apostate Protestantism in the New” is identifying “Romanism of the Old World” as the papacy during the Dark Ages, and the United States (apostate Protestantism) as Modern Rome, represented by the phrase “apostate Protestantism in the New.” The “Old” is defined as past history, and the “New” is defined as modern or current history. That application wrest Sister White’s established understanding of both Christendom and the Old and New world.
Pe ñe’ẽ pahaite pe párrafo jahesarekohápe ojeipuru hag̃ua oñemombeʼu hag̃ua “Romanismo pe Yvy Tuja-pe ha protestantismo apóstata pe Yvy Pyahu-pe” ohechauka hag̃ua “Romanismo pe Yvy Tuja-pe”ha pe papado pe Época Pytũmbýpe, ha Tetã Unidos (protestantismo apóstata)ha Roma Moderna, ojehechaukáva pe ñeʼẽjoaju rupive “protestantismo apóstata pe Yvy Pyahu-pe”. Pe “Tuja” oñemyesakã tembiasakue hasýma hag̃uáicha, ha pe “Pyahu” oñemyesakã tembiasakue moderna térã koʼág̃agua hag̃uáicha. Upéicha pe aplicación ombokarẽ Sy White entendimiento oñemopyenda porãmava mokõivéva cristiandad rehe ha pe Yvy Tuja ha Yvy Pyahu rehe.
Those who apply the sentence in terms of past and future history, identify “a private interpretation” in direct contradiction to Sister White’s intended meaning. The claim is that the “Old World” represents past history and the “New” represents modern or current history (New).
Umi omoĩva pe ñe’ẽjoaju yma guare ha oútava rembiasakue rehe, omoakãrapuʼã “peteĩ interpretación privada” Sister White he’iséva rehegua rovakeite ha ojoavy hag̃uáicha. He’iséva hikuái pe “Mundo Tuja” ohechauka hag̃ua rembiasakue yma guare ha pe “Pyahu” ohechauka hag̃ua rembiasakue ko’ág̃agua térã ág̃agua (Pyahu).
The passage says, “will pursue.” Romanism and apostate Protestantism “will pursue a similar course toward those who honor all the divine precepts.” The Old World in the passage is Europe and the New world is the Americas. Sister White is teaching that the entire world is to be confronted by the Sunday law test, and that Romanism will lead out in the persecutions in Europe and apostate Protestantism will lead out in persecutions in the Americas. The Americas and Europe are what is defined as “Christendom.” Both Romanism and apostate Protestantism “will pursue a similar course toward those who honor all the divine precepts.”
Pe pasáhe he’i: “omuña.” Romanismo ha protestantismo apóstata “omotenondéta peteĩ tape ojoguáva umi ohayhu ha omomba’éva opavave umi precepto divino gotyo.” Pe “Mundo Tuja” oñeñe’ẽva pe pasáhepe ha’e Europa, ha pe “Mundo Pyahu” ha’e Las Américas. Hermana White ombo’e opavave yvy arigua oñembohováitaha pe prueba léi del domingo rehegua rupive, ha Romanismo omotenondetaha umi persecución Europa-pe, ha protestantismo apóstata omotenondetaha umi persecución Las Américas-pe. Las Américas ha Europa ha’e umi oñembohérava “Cristiandad”. Mokõivéva, Romanismo ha protestantismo apóstata, “omotenondéta peteĩ tape ojoguáva umi ohayhu ha omomba’éva opavave umi precepto divino gotyo.”
“Will pursue” is identifying a future action by both powers, and it is grammatically impossible to suggest that Romanism of the Old World is the papal power of the Dark Ages. The persecution carried out by both powers is future tense. The definition of the phrase is “will pursue” and it means to follow or chase after something with the intention of achieving or attaining it. It implies a future action where an individual or group is committed to actively seeking a goal or objective.
“Omuña” he’ise mokõi mburuvicha rekove rembiapo oútava, ha gramatikakuaa rupive ndaikatúi oñemoĩ Romaguigua ypykuegua Romanismoha pe papado pyharepytũ ára rehegua. Pe ñembyahýi ojejapóva mokõive mburuvicha rupi oĩ ára oútava pegua. Pe ñe’ẽjoaju ñemyesakã ha’e “omuña”, ha he’ise oho hapykuéri térã oñani peteĩ mba’e rapykuéri ojehupyty térã ojeikekuaávo hese hag̃ua. Upéva ohechauka peteĩ tembiapo oútava, peteĩ tapicha térã aty oñemoĩmbaretéva oñeha’ã hag̃uáicha kyre’ỹme oguahẽ peteĩ jehupytyrã térã peteĩ rembipota rehe.
The phrase can be applied in various contexts: “She will pursue a career in medicine,” meaning she plans to work towards becoming a medical professional. “He will pursue a degree in engineering,” indicating he intends to study engineering at a higher educational institution. “The team will pursue the project until completion,” suggesting the team will continue working on the project until it is finished. “They will pursue legal action against the company,” meaning they intend to take legal steps to address a grievance or seek justice. Overall, “will pursue” implies determination, commitment, and a clear intention to achieve a specific goal or outcome in the future.
Pe ñe’ẽjoaju ikatu ojeporu opaichagua contexto-pe: “Ha’e osegíta peteĩ tembiapo pohãnohára rehegua”, he’iséva ha’e oguerekoha tembipota omba’apo hag̃uáicha peteĩ profesional pohãnohára ramo. “Ha’e osegíta peteĩ título ingeniería-pe”, ohechauka hag̃ua ha’e oipotáha oestudia ingeniería peteĩ mbo’ehao yvatevehápe. “Pe aty osegíta pe proyecto ipahápeve”, ohechaukáva pe aty osegitaha omba’apo pe proyecto rehe opa peve. “Ha’ekuéra osegíta tembiapo jurídico pe empresa rehe”, he’iséva ha’ekuéra oipotáha ojapo umi tembiapo léi rehegua ombohovái hag̃ua peteĩ reclamo térã oheka hag̃ua tekojoja. Oñembojoapývo, “osegíta” he’ise py’aguapy mbarete, ñeñeme’ẽ, ha peteĩ intención hesakãva ohupyty hag̃ua peteĩ objetivo térã resultado específico amo gotyove.
The private interpretation that is employed to teach that Romanism of the Old World is past history, is thereafter employed as a plank to uphold an incorrect application of a triple application of prophecy. It argues that the triple application of Rome represents pagan Rome, followed by papal Rome and then the United States as the third of the three Rome’s. A very similar flawed application was employed shortly after September 11, 2001, when a group separated from the movement over the book of Joel.
Pe interpretación privada ojepurúva oñembo’e hag̃ua pe romanismo pe Yvy Tuja-pegua ha’e hag̃ua tembiasakue ohasáma va’ekue, upéi ojepuru peteĩ tablaicha oñemopu’ã hag̃ua peteĩ aplicación vai peteĩ aplicación triple rehegua profesía-pe. He’i pe aplicación triple Roma rehegua ohechaukaha Roma pagána, upéi Roma papal, ha upéi Estados Unidos peteĩha mbohapy Roma apytégui. Peteĩ aplicación vai ojoguaitereíva ko’ãvape ojepuruva’ekue sapy’ami rire 11 jasyporundy 2001 rire, peteĩ aty oñemombyry jave pe movimiento-gui pe kuatia Joel rehe.
The controversy then began at a camp meeting in Canada where the triple application of the three woes was incorporated into the book of Joel to teach that Islam of the third woe was the nation that came against the land in verse six of chapter one. That nation is papal Rome, but a private interpretation was introduced claiming the nation was Islam. The triple application of three woes had established Islam as the power of September 11, 2001, and the new private interpretation insisted the papal power of Joel chapter one was actually Islam. A private interpretation that rejected the correct identification of papal power in the book of Joel was bolstered up by an incorrect application of the three woes. Now a private interpretation setting aside the papal power for the United States is being introduced.
Upéi oñepyrũ peteĩ aty ñembo’eha rógape Canadá-pe, upépe umi mbohapy jejapo hag̃ua umi mbohapy ñembyasy rehegua oñemoinge Joel aranduka-pe hag̃ua oje’e hag̃ua Islam, pe ñembyasy mbohapyháva rehegua, ha’eha pe tetã ou va’ekue pe yvýre pe versíkulo 6, kapítulo peteĩhápe. Umi tetã ha’e Roma papal, ha katu oñemoinge peteĩ ñemyesakã ijeheguíva he’íva pe tetã ha’eha Islam. Umi mbohapy jejapo umi mbohapy ñembyasy rehegua omopyenda va’ekue Islam-pe tekotevẽháicha pe pokatu 11 jasyporundy 2001-pe, ha pe ñemyesakã pyahu ijeheguíva oñembopy’atã va’ekue he’ívo pe pokatu papal Joel kapítulo peteĩhápe añetehápe ha’eha Islam. Peteĩ ñemyesakã ijeheguíva ombotovéva pe jehechakuaa hekopete pe pokatu papal rehegua Joel arandukápe oñemombarete va’ekue peteĩ jejapo vai rupive umi mbohapy ñembyasy rehegua. Ko’ág̃a oñemoinge hína ambue ñemyesakã ijeheguíva omboykéva pe pokatu papal omoĩ hag̃ua hendaguépe Tetã peteĩ reko Joapykuévo.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. Ecclesiastes 1:9, 10.
Pe oĩ vaekue, upéva voi oĩta; ha pe ojapopyre, upéva voi ojejapóta: ha ndaipóri mba’e pyahu kuarahy guýpe. Oĩ piko mba’e ikatúva he’i hese, Ema’ẽ, kóva ipyahu? Ymave yma guive oĩma kuri, ñande mboyve. Eclesiastés 1:9, 10.
The controversies of the last days include the repetition of old controversies, and Daniel chapter eleven has the controversy of Uriah Smith placing his private interpretation upon the symbol of the king of the north. In so doing he manufactured an understanding of Daniel chapter eleven that only produced darkness. In these last days the controversies that are repeated are especially identifying the fruit of applying private interpretations to established truth. This is what Smith did in his book, Daniel and the Revelation. This is what was done in the controversy in the book of Joel, and it is the same dynamics that are being employed when one paragraph from The Great Controversy avoids the definition within the world and within the writings of Ellen White as to what “Christendom” represents, along with the rejection of the basic rules of grammar that identify the phrase “will pursue” identifies a future event. From that point of reference, the flawed concept that the “Old World” is the history of the papal power from 538 unto 1798, is then used to argue against the established understanding of the definition of a triple application of prophecy.
Umi ñorairõ paha ára pahápe oike avei umi ñorairõ yma guaréva jevy jey, ha Daniel kapítulo oncepe oĩ pe ñorairõ Uriah Smith rehegua omoĩ haguére ijeheguínte osẽva interpretación símbolo “mburuvicha yvate gotyogua” rehe. Péicha ojapóvo, haʼe ojapo peteĩ entendimiento Daniel kapítulo once rehegua oguerúva pytũnte. Koʼã ára pahápe umi ñorairõ oñembojeýva ohechauka hag̃ua, peteĩchaite, mbaʼéichapa hiʼa pe aplicación umi interpretación privada rehegua pe añetegua oñemopyendáva ári. Kóva haʼe Smith ojapovaʼekue ilívrope, Daniel and the Revelation. Kóva avei pe ojejapovaʼekue pe ñorairõme Joel lívro rehegua, ha koʼãva peteĩchagua dinámica ojeporúva avei peteĩ párrafo The Great Controversy-gui ojehekýi jave pe definición oĩva ko yvy ape ári ha Ellen White jehaipýpe mbaʼépa heʼise “Christendom”, oñemoĩve hag̃ua yke hag̃ua umi regla básica gramática rehegua ohechaukáva pe ñeʼẽjoaju “will pursue” omombeʼuha peteĩ mbaʼe oikótava tenonderãme. Upe punto de referencia guive, upe concepto ivaíva heʼíva pe “Old World” haʼeha pe tembiasakue pokatu papal rehegua ary 538 guive 1798 peve, upéi ojeporu hag̃ua oñemoĩ hag̃ua ñorairõme pe entendimiento oñemopyendáva definición rehegua peteĩ aplicación triple profecía rehegua.
“All that God has in prophetic history specified to be fulfilled in the past has been, and all that is yet to come in its order will be. Daniel, God’s prophet, stands in his place. John stands in his place. In the Revelation the Lion of the tribe of Judah has opened to the students of prophecy the book of Daniel, and thus is Daniel standing in his place. He bears his testimony, that which the Lord revealed to him in vision of the great and solemn events which we must know as we stand on the very threshold of their fulfillment.
“Opaite Ñandejára omoĩva’ekue poroprofétape tembiasakue-pe oñekumpli hag̃ua ymave, oñekumpli-ma; ha opa mbaʼe oikótava gueteri, iñorden-pe, oikóta. Daniel, Ñandejára maranduhára, opyta ijyvy rendápe. Juan opyta ijyvy rendápe. Apocalipsis-pe, Judá ñemoñare León oipeʼa profecía rehegua temimboʼérape g̃uarã pe kuatiañeʼẽ Daniel rehegua, ha upéicha Daniel opyta ijyvy rendápe. Haʼe ogueru hekojerovia, upe mbaʼe Ñandejára oikuaaukavaʼekue chupe visión rupive umi mbaʼe guasu ha peteĩchagua pyʼarory rehegua, tekotevẽva jaikuaa ñande, ñaimévo hínaite umíva oñekumpli hag̃uáicha rokẽme.”
“In history and prophecy the Word of God portrays the long continued conflict between truth and error. That conflict is yet in progress. Those things which have been, will be repeated. Old controversies will be revived, and new theories will be continually arising. But God’s people, who in their belief and fulfillment of prophecy have acted a part in the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages, know where they stand. They have an experience that is more precious than fine gold. They are to stand firm as a rock, holding the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end.” Selected Messages, book 2, 109.
“Tembiasakuépe ha marandu hag̃uáme Tupã Ñe’ẽ ohechauka pe joavy pukukue oikóva añetegua ha jejavy apytépe. Upéva gueteri oiko hína. Umi mba’e oikómava, ojehupyty jeýta. Umi ñorairõ yma guaréva oñemombopyahúta, ha arandu pyahu opa ára osẽta hína. Hákatu Tupã retãyguakuéra, ijerovia rehe ha marandu hag̃ua ñembotýpe oikóva rupive ojapo va’ekue peteĩ tembiapo ñe’ẽmondópe pe angel peteĩha, mokõiha ha mbohapyha marandu rehegua, oikuaa moõpa opyta. Oreko hikuái peteĩ jehasa oikovéva itebyeterei hag̃ua óro iporãvévagui. Ha’ekuéra opyta va’erã mbarete itáicha, ojoko hatã hag̃ua ijerovia ñepyrũmby peve paha.” Selected Messages, libro 2, 109.
It can be easily demonstrated that Sister White identifies Paul’s “beginning of their confidence,” as the foundational truths of Adventism. The Millerites taught the robbers of thy people was the papal power, and from 1989 onward the movement of the one hundred and forty-four thousand has repeatedly identified the same understanding of the symbol as did the Millerites. There is now a “new theory” as to who the robbers of thy people are, and it has revived an old controversy in the sense that it uses an incorrect identification of an established prophetic symbol to build a prophetic model that is erected upon sand. Whether it was Smith’s private interpretation, or the false application of the nation in Joel chapter one, or the identification of the United States as Modern Rome; all three fallacies attack the correct understanding of papal Rome in the last days, and in so doing they attack the symbol that establishes the prophetic vision that identifies whether God’s people perish or live.
Ikatu hag̃uáicha hesakã porã Sister White omombeʼuha Pablo remiandu “iñepyrũ ypy jerovia rehegua” haʼeha Adventismo añetegua iñepyrũrã. Umi Millerista omboʼe “nde retayguakuéra mondaha kuéra” haʼeha pu'aka papal, ha ary 1989 guive pe movimiento cien cuarenta y cuatro mil rehegua heta jey ombojekuaa pe símbolo ñehesaʼỹijo peteĩchaguaite umi Millerista ojapohaguéicha. Koʼág̃a oĩ peteĩ “teoría pyahu” máva-pa hína “nde retayguakuéra mondaha kuéra”, ha upéva omoingove jey peteĩ controversia yma guare, pe sentido-pe oipuruháre peteĩ jejavy vaíva peteĩ símbolo profético oñemopyendáva rehegua hag̃ua omopuʼã peteĩ modelo profético oñemopuʼãva yvykuʼi ári. Tahaʼe Smith interpretación privada, térã pe aplicación japu pe tetã rehe Joel kapítulo peteĩme, térã Estados Unidos jehechakuaa Roma Moderna ramo; umi mbohapy jejavy oñorairõ pe añetegua kuaapy rehegua Roma papal rehe umi ára pahápe, ha upéicha ojapóvo, oñorairõ hikuái pe símbolo rehe omopyendáva pe visión profética ohechaukáva Tupã tavayguakuéra omanótapa térã oikovéta.
In the future Romanism in Europe and apostate Protestantism in the Americas “will pursue” persecution of Sabbath-keepers as has been done throughout sacred history.
Ko'ẽrõ Europape Romanismo ha Amérikape Protestantismo apóstata “omotenonde vaʼerã” pyʼajuha umi sábado rapyhára rehe, ojejapo haguéicha opaite tembiasakue marangatu pukukue.
“God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep. Precious light has come, appropriate for this time. It is Bible truth, showing the perils that are right upon us. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold. God would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth.” Gospel Workers, 299.
“Tupã omombokyre’ỹta Itavayguakuérape; ambue tape ndoikovéiramo, oike vaʼerã ijapytepekuéra herejía, ha umíva omboykuáta chupekuéra, ombojaʼóvo pe ñuatĩmimi pe trígo-gui. Ñandejára ohenói opa umi ogueroviáva Iñeʼẽ topáy hag̃ua oke guive. Oguahẽma tesape iporãitereíva, ko árape guarãete. Kóva hína añetegua Bíblica, ohechaukáva umi mbaʼe vai ñane renondetépe oĩmava. Ko tesape ogueraha vaʼerã ñandéve peteĩ estudio kyreʼỹme Ñandejára Ñeʼẽ rehegua ha peteĩ jehecha pypuku ha hesakã porãva umi ñamboʼýva rehe. Tupã oipota opaite umi aspecto ha posición añetegua rehegua tojehechajoaite ha tojeheka mbarete ha tapia hag̃uáicha, ñemboʼe ha ayuno ndive. Umi ogueroviáva ndopytuʼuivaʼerãi suponévo térã idea hesakãʼỹvare mbaʼépa hína pe añetegua.” Gospel Workers, 299.
We will continue these thoughts in the next article.
Koʼẽrõgua artículo-pe rosegíta koʼã pensamiento rehe.